Do you find that you forget the movies you have seen? We do, so this blog is a diary of the movies we have seen and our opinions and reactions to them. Hopefully it will be useful to others to read a non professional opinion of movies and that we can generate discussion without all the "gossip" surrounding the movie industry.

This is based on the true story of a group of French Christian monks living peacefully as part of the community in a remote village in Algeria in 19--. Their situation becomes more and more dangerous after some Romanian volunteers are murdered by the Jihadists. They are faced with the decision to remain in the village where they are of assistance with medical expertise, legal advice and assistance to the villagers or to flee to the safety of their homeland. The movie traces how each monk deals with this dilemma personally and spiritually and how they gain the respect of certain sections of the extremists and put themselves at risk with the authorities for treating their wounds. In the end, the inevitable happens and they are taken hostage by the rebels to be used as political leverage for the release of prisoners.

The movie is absorbing and well-acted but you can't help but think that they are setting themselves up to be martyrs and that they would be so much better to get the hell out of there while they could, so as not to create an international incident and be used for ransom, and instead go somewhere where they could do more good by staying alive! Sorry, but for me blind adherence to religion in the face of common sense just doesn't cut it! The sacrifice of their lives was for nothing - they were no help to the villagers once they were taken hostage or dead!

My Score: 6/10

Pepe's View:

Xavier Beauvois wrote and directed this true story of a group of monks in Algeria deciding whether to stay and offer what help they can to the villagers or leave and return ot their homelands. For two interminable hours their personal and group deliberations continue interspersed with numerous prayers and much chanting. I did not feel that the personal conflict of each man was developed enough nor the dilemma of the group explored.
For me, this film had far too many religious overtones - almost an indoctrination piece. I could imagine it being shown to Catholic school children as an educational piece lauding Christian values.
I accept that there was a dilemma - but I couldn't help wondering how do the monks serve their God when they are dead? However, I could not help feeling that underlying their decision was the belief that if they died as martyrs then their entrance to heaven was guaranteed.
It seemd to me there is a time for heroics - when by your actions you are saving another's life for example - but in this case their decision to stay actually made the life of the villagers more dangerous and the monks couldn't do anything to save them from the jihadists in any case.
Eventually the monks are captured and held as hostage to make a political point and publicise the rebel's cause.
A ponderous uncritical examination of the decision made by monks caught up in a civil war.

If you believed the hype about this movie, then you would believe it is one of the masterpieces of modern cinema such is the power and effectiveness of the US movie industry publicity machine. Did you know that a US movie spends almost twice as much on publicity as a European movie spends in total? There is no way this movie lives up to its hype. An overblown, melodramatic, pretentious load of rubbish. Director Darren Aronofsky has dragged out every trick in the book - extreme close ups, hand held camera, sumptuous sets and interminable mirror shots - to try to make this movie seem important.
Using the musical score of Swan Lake and borrowing plot lines from the original to pretentiously mirror the life of the ballet's star played by Natalie Portman. She ran the gamut of emotions from A - B to borrow an old phrase. She began the movie obviously paranoid and slightly crazy, and continued to become even crazier and more paranoid throughout the movie.
There is no way she deserved Oscar nomination at all for this performance.
The music was intrusive and far too obvious throughout.
To top this rubbish off - it went on for what seemed like days. Why do directors think that if I keep people in the theatre for long enough they will feel they got their money's worth?

I am afraid there is not much to recommend this film other than perhaps the costumes and set.

My Score: 5/10

Ma's View:

I wholeheartedly agree! And as for the black versus white colour theme! Not subtle at all. I'm sure most real-life ballerinas would not find much to be impressed with in this movie - petty infighting and bickering, lack of professionalism and a lead ballerina who is clearly mentally unstable and would never have been chosen for the role because of this. I wanted her to kill her mother; it would have been more suitable that the ending but not so melodramtic. A movie clearly made to be a blockbuster and with the Oscars in mind.

This movie brings into the light the sad and shameful history of the deportation of Jewish families from France to the death camps in 1942 during the German occupation - with the full collaboration of French authorities and the approval of at least some of its citizens. Julia, played by Kristen Scott-Thomas, in her usual powerful, understated style, is an American journalist based in Paris and married to a Frenchman, who researches the events of this period for a feature article. Piece by piece, she discovers the story of 10 year old Sarah who locked her little brother in a cupboard to prevent him being taken, promising to return and release him. Melusine Mayance captures the desperate determination yet vulnerability of this little girl as she is caught up in circumstances beyond her understanding or control.

Up to this point, the movie apparently follows closely the plot of the novel, "Elle s'appelait Sarah", upon which the movie is based, presenting an absorbing narrative of these terrible events interspersed with scenes from the present where we learn of the effects of her discoveries upon Julia. Sadly, somewhere at this point, the story stops being Sarah's story and becomes Julia's. Her discovery that the family's apartment that she and her partner are about to renovate is the very apartment where the little boy was entombed causes relationship problems. These are exacerbated by her obsession for finding out what became of Julia in later life. This part of the story leads us to America, a son, a terminally ill ex-husband and we learn about Sarah's inability to attain happiness leading to her eventual suicide. In all this, far too much celluloid is devoted to the son and father and Julia and we see only snippets of Sarah - and a not very convincing performance from the adult actress playing Sarah does not help this part of the story.

All in all a little disappointing! A superb performance as usual from Scott-Thomas (blast her for looking so much younger than me when she is actually older!) and an interesting historical story marred by too much imagination on the part of director/co-writer Gilles Paquet-Brenner who I'm assuming thought the story needed to be padded out with the unconvincing and unsatisfying ending.

My Score: 7/10

Pepe's View:

I agree Ma. All in all a little too contrived throughout - the movie was convincing when it was about Sarah played as a girl beautifully by Melusine Mayance but the added on (padding?) section of Sarah as an adult lost me completely. Interestingly, the original novel ended when the little girl returned to the appartment to find her brother. This would have been the perfect place to end the movie as well. It is fantastic that the events of the round up of the Jews in Paris by the Gendarmes in 1942 are finally finding a voice but the French film "The Round Up" is a far better investigation of this blot on France's history.
I read an interesting comment on this and other holocaust stories such as Life is Beautiful and The Boy in Striped Pyjamas. There is a strong feeling and one which I tend to share that these fictional dramas based on real events cheapen the hundreds of thousands of "real stories" that occurred. Some time spent on research would unearth them and make for far better and more convincing stories. As one reviewer says - we are encouraged to grieve for the story of an imaginary Sarah while the thousands of stories of real Sarahs are forgotton.
A good movie up to a point but one that did not know when to end.

Pepe's View:
I have to say at the outset that I love almost every movie Nicole Kidman chooses to be involved with. This time she is the Producer and the lead actress - a combination to send me to the theatre with high expectations.
I had seen "Rabbit Hole" performed on stage a few years ago and so knew the plot well. The fact that David Lindsay-Adaire adapted the screenplay from his own play was yet another reason to raise my expectations.
The playwright - investigating the effect on a relationship of an unthinkable tragedy and indeed exploring grief - does an adequate job of transposing a stage play to the screen, however, the setting of the protaganists in an affluent neighbourhood and in a picture perfect house was unnecessary as the movie was not about the status of the people but about their soul. The interminable shots of the house and view from same were to me a distraction.
We follow Bec (Nicole Kidman) and her husband Howie (Aaron Eckhart) as they are trying to come to terms with the sudden tragic death of their only son who chases the family dog onto the street and is hit by a car. All this occurs off screen and thankfully Director John Cameron Mitchell does not succumb to the temptation of showing this in flashback. Bec by chance sees the young boy who was the driver of the car that killed her son and follows him in an attempt to assuage her grief. (In the play, the young driver comes to their house as he also is trying to work through his grief and pain).
Attempts to go to a self help group fail miserably (some of the best scenes in the film), and Howie almost sees the only way out of his grief is to be unfaithful to Bec.
The final scene in the movie is I feel the best- the couple throw a BBQ lunch and invite all their old friends who have been treading on eggshells unsure and unable to resume their old friendship since the tragedy. The suffering of the characters is summed up at the end of this scene - the grieving parents can put on a show of normality so that life goes on, but the pain is always there and will continue for the rest of their lives.
Nicole Kidman does a fantastic job once again, this time showing us the pain of Bec, and Aaron Eckhart does adequately showing us his pain and how he is trying to come to terms with the tragedy.
However, the movie did not really grab me - I am not sure why, it just did not fully realise in me the tragedy. Everything about the movie is hard to fault - the screenplay, the direction and the acting - but it lacked the final ingredient to raise it to a higher level.

My Score: 7/10

Ma's View:

Pepe you hated "Australia" and even Nicole Kidman couldn't make that palatable for you!

Yes, Rabbit Hole is a very powerful movie/play about the effects of grief on people and their relationships and we learn a great deal about the varying methods people use to cope, the most important aspect being that everyone finds their own way of coping. I enjoyed Kidman's performance but I especiallly enjoyed her offbeat, wayward sister, played by Tammy Blanchard, and her mum, played by Diane West, a mature American actress whom I had not seen before. Her description of the grief of losing a child was very poignant "it's like a brick you carry around with you all the time but after a while you like having it because it's what you have instead of your child". (Probably misquoted but that's the gist - a pain that never quite leaves you)

The young man in the movie was not quite as well-drawn as in the play - I felt he did not capture the impact that running down a child even accidentally might have on his peace of mind. In the play, he was much more in need of her forgiveness and understanding.

Nevertheless, a very satisfying movie, even though for us some of the tension was diffused because we knew from the start what was causing the mother's erratic behaviour.

I loved Sally Hawkins in "Happy Go Lucky" so when I saw she was the lead of a true story I couldn't wait to see the movie. The trouble is, the movie is not a true account of the historical events. Yes, women at the Ford factory in Dagenham took industrial action to get equal pay and yes, they triumphed over a multinational company but that pretty much is where the true story and the movie part company.
There was no real life Rita O'Grady (played wonderfully by Sally Hawkins) and no attractive posy of women who worked with her. Nigel Cole and the scriptwriters took a great deal of liberties with the events and I found it very disappointing that this was so. I wanted there to be a Rita O'Grady leading the women against the bosses!
Having said that, the movie was very entertaining, totally believable and an amazing lesson of what women can do against a "man's" world especially as it was set in 1968.
I loved the "little side plots". The male union bosses encouraging the women to take action on the one hand and in bed with the management on the other, the friction between husband and wives as women dared to cause hardship to their families and the effect on the women themselves as they doubted their cause.
Bob Hoskings (the token male?) was as always superb as the union delegate effectively sitting on the fence while agitating behind the scenes for the women to take action and for Rita O'Grady to be their leader.
I enjoyed the revealing scenes when the leaders of the strike met with Barbara Castle (minister in the UK Gov't) played by Miranda Richardson - women talking to women (the first time this had happened in the movie) - which showed the toughness and sincerity of women as opposed to the false allegiances as indicated by the male negotiations.
A very enjoyable movie but one that would have been even more powerful if the script had kept to the historical facts.

My Score: 8/10

Ma's View:

How disappointing to find out that the details of the story are a fabrication! At least it is true that the women made gains for their sex in a male-dominated, American owned factory, striking one of the first blows for "equal pay for equal work", a battle which goes on to this day.

Sally Hawkins played the lead role very well although her acting style is becoming a little predictable now. This seems picky but I do wish the hair-dressers were not quite so bent on showing us their talents! In every scene we had every girl with immaculate 60's hair styles, curled, teased and perfectly in place - no busy mother of 2 has time to go to quite that much trouble to work in a car factory! Yes on a Friday night when they go out on the town but not every day at the factory.

Yet another movie viewed at BIFF last year - we have nearly caught up on the blogs. Pity there wasn't someone out there interested in reading them!

Unfortunately, I found it very hard to develop any empathy for the central character, film star Johnny Marco (played by Stephen Dorf) - probably because he played the vacuous movie star who had no clue of what really mattered in life only too well. I guess that is the good point about the movie - it accurately reflects the lifestyle that can become "normal" for a celebrity, where he has whatever he wants in the way of girls, food, drink, car but has difficulty creating meaning out of his existence. We see him in a routine of mindless activities - driving his car in circles, watching cutsy strippers in his room, partying, press conferences etc etc. You get the feeling he is going through the motions in a make-believe world. Then he is required to dig into the depths of himself and take on a real-life role - father - to his daughter, Cleo, who is put into his care by his ex-wife for an extended period. Played by Elle Fanning with warmth and conviction, Cleo breathes meaning into his life and we see him slowly respond to her needs and begin to feel good about himself.

Director, Sofia Coppola has done a good job with the story but I still ended up thinking "who cares?"

My score: 6/10

Pepe's View:

I agree - I left the movie with exactly the same feeling, "Who Cares". The movie was well directed, well acted (especially the role of Cleo played by Elle Fanning), but "somewhere" it all went wrong and just didn't seem to connect with me. The story is a little trite - film star hero with anything he wants suddenly realising that the only thing that can make meaning in his life is family in the guise of his daughter who is thrust upon him. This sums up the whole movie - there is nothing more so it could have been told in 15 minutes without all the posturing. I felt Stephen Dorf as Johnny Marco played the role of bored, disinterested star well but I didn't see much real change in his body language as the realisation of how to be really happy dawned. He still seemed to me to be bored and largely disinterested in life.
A disappointing movie.

Another movie we saw by chance not choice during one of our volunteer stints at BIFF last year and thoroughly enjoyed on all counts!

The movie retells the life of Serge Gainsbourg, a French rockstar during the 70's, who as a small boy (called Lucien Ginsberg) experienced the Nazi occupation of Paris. He was both artistically and musically gifted, the latter being drummed into him by his father and the former being his own preference even though it did not bring him the success which music did in the end. The audience is treated to the fascinating life story and exceptional music of this bad boy of the French rock scene who has a stream of lovers and is always in the news for his various misbehaviours.

Debut director Johann Sfar has drawn upon his own artistic talents in the graphic novel medium to create a wonderful comic figure alter ego of Gainsbourg who dogs his tracks and reveals his inner motivations to the audience. Eric Elmosino in the lead role simply inhabits the character of Gainsbourg with such ease, that were it not for the cartoon alter ego you might think this was a documentary. His many female conquests included Brigitte Bardot (Laetitia Casta) and the English singer Jane Birkin ( Lucy Gordon) with whom he married and fathered 2 daughters.

All in all a very enjoyable and unexpected delight of a movie.

My score: 8/10

Pepe's View:

Serge Gainsbourg was indeed a strange but incredibly talented and driven artist. The movie telling (renacting) his life story is at once fascinating and confusing. The director's use of an alter ego increases the confusion. Gainsbourg seemingly had little respect for the conventions of French society - his parody of the French National Anthem gained him much criticism. Although many of the establishment seemed to dislike and shun him, everyone secretly admired him and his power over women. His ability to seduce sexy, attractive women was legendary and he seemingly was never seen without a cigarette hanging from his mouth!
It was refreshing to see a well made, well acted and intelligent story of a man's life - an artist about whom I new nothing.
A thoroughly enjoyable movie.

We saw this movie with our grandchildren (Aged 10 and 7) and probably because they are used to Pixar animations, the movie left them only mildly entertained. No one in our group had read the book so the whole experience was fresh and needed to stand on its own. Jack Snyder (Director) did a great job of providing us with lots of owl batttles and adventures although there was sometimes so much going on that the adults at least couldn't keep up!
The animation is first class and the owls themselves are incredibly life like and endearing. Their facial expressions and range of emotions are a delight.
The cast (voices) reads like a who's who of Australian acting - Hugo Weaving, David Wenham, Abbie Cornish, Sascha Horler, Sam Neill and Barry Otto for starters. It is no wonder then that the characters are endearing.
For all this expertise, the movie just doesn't quite make the grade. I am not sure why - perhaps it is the overly complicated plot or the fact that action often surplanted opportunities for character development. Either way, for me it was a good movie without being great - satisfying without being spectacular.

My Score: 7/10

Ma's View:

Yes it is always a pleasure when the movie for children also entertains the adults who are obliged to accompany them!

This was a delightful movie and there was quite a bit of humour in it as well - although perhaps for balance there could have been more humour and less emphasis on the action. There was just a bit too much aerial acrobatics for my taste and not enough on the character and situation. The owl puppets were exquisitely made with the most individual expressions so as a bird lover I found that very satisfactory.

An Australian Film with almost a who's who of Australian actors - Sam Neill, Guy Pearce, Mirando Otto, Justine Clark and Rebecca Gibney. The director and writer, Simone North, tells us from the outset that this is a true story which occurred only few years ago. As a result I spent most of the film wondering what the real Barber family thought of the film and the actors interpreting their pain.
The movie takes us on a journey as we follow Rachel Barber (Kate Bell) a beautiful young girl who has everything to live for and the world at her feet. Her family is a normal caring supportive family whose lives are thrown into chaos when Rachel disappears. The film then moves from Rachel's exact whereabouts to the parents frantic attempts to find theur daughter and their efforts to get the police involved.
Rachel is tricked by the lure of cash to go to the flat of a friend (slightly older) who used to babysit the Barber children when they were young. Caroline is plain, overweight and lonely - everything Rachel is not. That Ruth Bradley manages to evoke our sympathy for this revolting, confused and psychotic character is a tribute to her acting ability - a talent to watch.
The movie is really nothing more than an exposition of the events of that night and the days following and attempts to reveal the pain and desperation of both Rachel's and Caroline's parents although for different reasons.
This is a movie that would have made a great documentary (which it really is) - it gives us little more than plot.
It is worth seeing for the performance of Ruth Bradley however who is a stand out.

My Score: 6/10

Ma's View:

Yes, the movie is all plot but a very powerful, tense and dramatic plot based on true events. Even though we know half-way through what has happened we are still interested to see if the parents' anguish will be relieved by at least the discovery of what has happened to their daughter. The story is conveyed by the strength of the actors, Miranda Otto in particular, and Guy Pearce, as the parents who will not give up hope until all hope is gone.

It is scary to think that a seriously disturbed person could have been overlooked by her own parents and remain basically untreated for her condition leading her to commit such a horrendous crime. It is a tribute to the acting of Ruth Bradley that while we hate and fear her, we still feel sorry for her at the end of the movie. And then I ask myself if the story has not been sanitised to make the victim appear "perfect" for the sake of the Barber family, when in real life there was perhaps more reason for this seemingly unprovoked attack? Just a thought - nothing is ever quite so black and white in real life.

We did not choose to see Megamind; it just happened to be the session we were assigned as volunteers. We had dismissed it as an animation for kids. But what a pleasant surprise! Tom McGrath and Cameron Hood have directed this as a fast-moving, cleverly written send-up of hero movies which is entertaining on the adult level as well.

Megamind himself is not the typical villain, having become a villain as a result of his brilliance not being recognised as a child when he was always pitted against and beaten by the hero of the piece. When he finally overcomes his old enemy and gains complete control of "Metrocity" (pronounced with the emphasis on the second syllable to rhyme with "atrocity"), Megamind does not know what to do with himself. What is a villain without an enemy? What is 'evil' without the counterpoint of 'good'?

Voices by Will Ferrell and Tina Fey were very well done and the plot line is not predictable as in most hero movies. With a spate of clever one-liners and very ironic insights into the workings of our society, it is surprising that this animation did not have greater box office success.

My score: 7.5/10

Pepe's View:

My first 3D Movie! Once I got over watching a movie wearing silly glasses I could relax and enjoy. (I find it interesting that most people our age hate the fact we have had to start wearing glasses and resist it at every turn while the youth of today can't wait to wear them to watch a movie!). I didn't think that the 3D added anything to the movie - it was an animation which would be just as enjoyable in regular view. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that special effects in movies do nothing for me - it is the story and the characters that are all important.
But, back to Megamind! This was a thoroughly enjoyable movie - full of laughs, showing great insight into our society and containing the regulation number of chases and fights. Metrocity is taken over by a "baddie" after the "goodie" retires through boredom - the same old enemy, the same old rescues, the same old battles etc. Once Megamind is esconced as leader of the city and therefore controls all the money and has unlimited power, he becomes bored too. What is he to do all day? No one to fight and no one to save. He starts to pine for the good old days of his battles with the "goodie"!
He even visits the museum which was set up to celebrate the "good guys" life in order to relive this old life.
Of course all ends well and Metrocity is once again saved!
It is surprising that this did not do so well at the box office - perhaps the publicity machine did not work effectively - as it is one of the better animation movies for children of all ages.

We saw this beautiful Iranian movie last year and it still lingers in the psyche, not just for the magnificent, haunting scenery, but more so for the sheer power of this allegorical tale. The story is a fable which reflects the oppressive nature of the current regime in Iran and writer/director, Mohammad Rasoulet and his collaborator Jafar Panahi were jailed by the Iranian government as a result.

The film follows the journeys of a boatman who travels across a vast salt lake, visiting various isolated islands and ritualistically collecting the tears of the grieving in his glass vial. Each village reflects a different aspect of a society trapped in a net of prejudice, ignorance, superstition and persecution :- a woman's death is rationalised as acceptable since "the way she moved under her cloak" gave men impure ideas; a virgin is sacrificed to bring rain; a dwarf is entombed to absolve the sins of the villagers; an artist is blinded for painting the sea red.

You will be wondering about the plot line with such a string of tragic events.....well, once the tears have been laboriously collected from the sorrowful, they are brought to an old, old man whose feet they are used to wash. I'm guessing he represents the old regime and the vast lifeless salt lake is the country sucked of its vitality, its people clinging to life, mindlessly following tradition because they know no better. The stark images of the white/grey lake and the salt islands with their black-clothed inhabitants are what stick in the mind.

This was a rivetting film requiring effort to appreciate.

My score: 8.5/10

Pepe's View:

My first impression when watching this film was "What the??" It is a very confusing film that definitely requires concentration and a willingness to suspend disbelief in order to allow the splendid imagery and allegory to reveal all or most of what the film has to offer.

We begin the film on a boat slowly paddling across an immense calm sea until eventually landing on a white desolate (salt) island with seemingly no life. As the boatman reaches the island however, he is met by people who are expecting him and who escort him to the village. This scenario is repeated three or four times and as Ma has said, on each island the boatman collects the tears of the citizens.
These tears are then taken to wash the feet of the "ruler" of the land who lives in opulence and luxury in stark contrast to the barrenness of the islands.
The film is beautifully shot and directed as the tragedy of each village is revealed and the tears collected.
The Iranian director was imprisoned due to the subversive theme of the film and although I could see glimmers of the meaning behind the allegory, I wished I was more informed regarding the Iranian regime and the history of the country which would I am sure have made the film even more meaningful.
A great film which is worth seeing if only for the cinematography.

This West Australian movie is a somewhat autobiographical look at mother/daughter relationships by director Yu-Hsiu Camille Chen. It is definitely a film about women and for women. The central character, the mother, is delicately drawn by Nicola Barlett who catches the reflective frame of mind of this woman who is dying of cancer, for whom every moment and every interaction with her beloved daughters is fully examined and carried out with complete awareness. In contrast, the daughters live life at a pace (as we all seem to do in this modern world we have created), a pace which does not leave time for reflection or considered reactions.

The husband/father is on the edge of these relationships seemingly never having been close with any of the females in his life, including his wife, partly due to his job (an actor) and partly due to his character (a joker and egoist). The mother's concern is that she has not prepared her 3 "little sparrows" for life without her guidance, but it seems they will all find a way in the end. Ironically, it is the dad who sinks into depression, taking to the drink.

This is an interesting movie in which some passages are overly long. Enjoyable but not right up there.

My score: 7/10

Pepe's View:

Unfortunately, I have only sketchy memories of this film. After reading Ma's thoughts and looking up the film online, I have a basic understanding of the story but none of the characters, nor their situation has stayed with me. Undoubtedly, this is an indication of how I received this movie which was made in West Australia and investigates the mother daughter relationship and the strength of a mother to be there emotionally for her "Little Sparrows".
Perhaps being a male, the finer points of these mother daughter relationships were lost on me - a shame really as I would have expected that a film exploring this theme could have a lot to teach every viewer. Preaching to the converted and touching them emotionally is hardly the mark of a great film or film-maker.

I LOVED this movie!!! It's actually a documentary by Jane Oehr which traces the last 4 years in the life of an old lady in the village of Lauzert in SW France. Madame Clos is 96 when we first meet her and still making her daily trip for necessities of life down the steep hill to the village centre. Jane Oehr is privileged, as are we, to be given an intimate glimpse of French culture through the simple daily doings of this darling old lady - her ritual trip to the bakery, her "bonne soupe", the postman's visit, the schoolkids playing outside her window and sidling up for the special Vichy mints she keeps on hand for them. Her humour and joyful acceptance of her lot in life come from another era where people's needs were simpler or where they better understood themselves and what really mattered in this world.

Each year we go back to find her a little bit older and feebler but still alert and managing her life on her own terms. How long can this go on? We have grown to care for her and hope she makes it to 100. It is a credit to the skill Jane Oehr that she has in no way been intrusive into the life of her subject but has allowed Madame Clos reach out to us her audience and ensnare our hearts just as she did those around her.

My score: 8.5/10

Pepe's View:

This is a great movie which, although directed by an Australian, is a classic French movie - lovingly revealing of both the French people and the French culture. Madame Clos is a beautiful old lady already 96 years old when we meet her and the movie could be a recipe for how to live your life graciously and simply savouring all the little things that many of us don't seem to have the time for.
Jane Oehr skillfully introduced us to Madame Clos in stages and by the end of the movie we felt we had known her all her life instead of the 90 minutes we were in the theatre. We follow Madame Clos as she goes about her simple daily tasks and we are made aware, usually with the help of a slightly irritating voice over, that this life and all our lives are inexorably moving towards death. We are encouraged to expect this old lady's death but when we are informed that her simple life is over, it is still a shock and we leave the theatre filled with a sadness and a deep sense of loss - both for the wonderful old lady and for a way of life that sadly is also coming to an end.

We saw this movie at the end of 2010 but with one thing and another it is now March 2011....

The name "Lourdes" created the expectation that I would dislike the movie as much as I disliked the place when we visited in 1986 with its cheap commercialisation of religion. Not so at all! While revealing the sham and rigmarole, Austrian director/writer, Jessica Hausner gently examines the very human hopes and desires of all those who come, be they the sufferers themselves, their carers or the escort staff who accompany the busloads that arrive daily. Thus the movie very cleverly satisfies the sceptics as an exposé of religion while also managing to affirm the beliefs of the faithful.

The events of the film are given an authenticity by its almost documentary style - certainly it seems there are scenes where the cast is filmed among genuine pilgrims. Hausner achieves an excellent pacing of the drama as it unfolds, leading viewers to experience the same sense of almost fearful hope as the patients undergoing the ritual bathings, blessings and sceremonies. You can't help thinking that the church (or the tour company) is exploiting people at their most vulnerable!

In the lead role of Christine, Sylvie Testud's exceptional performance evokes our empathy with her mixture of half bemused cynicism of the strange rigmaroles she must undergo and the desperate hope that something miraculous may happen. We find ourselves (even the unbelievers amongst us!) hoping for her sake that this is not all for nothing.

Throughout, the church's message is that there is no panacea, that spiritual healing is the answer, that our human woes are nought compared to eternal life. Meanwhile, we see that life goes on much as ever: boys and girls fancy each other; people are jealous; they compete and when all the drama is over, nothing much has changed.

And there is a really good joke told by one of the priests! I can't remember it though!

Great viewing.

My score: 9/10

Pepe's View:

There is not much left to say except to reinforce all Ma has said. The film is wonderful - whenever we have talked about the film to others they cringe as they believe it would be just awful as they inevitably are revolted by the thought of "selling" or "marketing" religion.
This film does indeed reveal the "economy" of Lourdes but delves much deeper. We are simultaneously amused, touched and revolted by the characters - everyone from the nun who is leading the pilgrims, to the desperate hoping for a miracle, reach out and grab our sympathy and in most cases even a glimmer of our understanding. Juxtaposed with the devout are the young helpers who have decided to spend their summer doing something worthwhile but eventually end up seeing the pilgrimage as another means to flirt with the opposite sex.

The film's lead is Christine played beautifully by Sylvie Testud who evokes just the right amount of sympathy and understanding. She is desperate and of course will stop at nothing to find a cure, all the while giving the impression she does not really believe. She becomes the "plaything" of others who would like nothing better than if they were a part of any miracle!
Probably the concept I found most revolting but also the most amusing was the concept of an award to be presented within the group for the "best pilgrim".
Lourdes is a funny, tragic, revealing movie which is a joy from start to finish.

We saw this film as part of BIFF (Brisbane International Film Festival) and I must admit it left me totally confused but fascinated. Much argument ensued as to whether the couple were married - lots of clues seem to indicate they were but it appears that they were never married and the plot as developed stands intact.
Iranian director Abbas Kiarostami's first feature outside of his native country is very very interesting and riveting. Juliette Binoche is wonderful as usual as the unnamed woman (she won best actress at Cannes for the role) and English singer William Shimmell is totally believable in his first movie role as James Miller - an author who believes that a "copy" of art works is just as relevant as the original. Juliette Binoche gives James' manager a note with her phone number and when James comes to her shop, they proceed on a "date". Things are not as they seem however - they seem too familiar with each other and comfortable in their dialogue perhaps to have never previously met and when they begin acting as a married couple after being mistaken for one by the waitress in the coffee shop, the script becomes really confusing.
The scenery is fantastic - it really captures the Tuscan village they are visiting and altough it is a long film - almost 2 hrs - time flies as I was captivated by the relationship and of course the acting.
After reading many reviews I have come to understand that the couple were not married but the director and writer were simply having the protagonists play out the roles of many relationships before them (and no doubt after them) - a sort of universal love story. When James becomes cranky and moody at the woman's insistance they are photographed with newlyweds it seems that he wants to shout that these young marrieds will have their rose coloured glasses removed over time and settle into a relationship as much out of habit as of love.
A fascinating film that stayed with me long after leaving the theatre.

My Score: 8/10

Agreed it is absolutely fascinating and the acting superb - hard to believe William Shimmell was a first-time actor as he is in no way shown up by the formidable talent of Binoche! As for the plot - I believe it was deliberately left obscure whether or not they had been married before. If they were not (as other reviews state) then they certainly acted out the film title, presenting a copy of a marriage relationship that fooled not only the people they encountered but this viewer as well!

It is this mismatch between the fact that they are supposed virtual strangers at the outset yet act in many circumstances like a previously married couple, that makes the film so interesting. The viewer is always picking up clues that don't match the situation. If they were not married before then the woman is attempting to act out a 15 year relationship that never existed which means she is a bit loopy to say the least and it is no wonder the man gets irritated and begins to act the part of the detached, unemotional ex-husband. My sentimental nature wanted it all to come right in the end but of course that would be trite!

And isn't this globalisation of the film industry wonderful? An Iranian director makes a film set in Italy which stars a French actress and an English baritone!